There are quite a few pronounced opinions
about the sense and nonsense of team building. If we briefly explore the
drivers in this area, we soon see two dimensions in the issue :
1- Find satisfaction for the relational
uncertainty in a group. When people seek safety, they especially want
their ‘reflex brain’ to calm down, reduce emotional ‘overload’. This can be
done by by "searching " and "playing " (1),
but also by all the actions that bring the emotional aspect of behavior to
rest. The needs of the 'reflex brain' are central, and these needs have to
be taken care of.
2- Strengthening
the common basis of the team's mission, forward thinking and making
agreements. This means that the pre- frontal part of
the brain is used and stimulated: working on goals, agreements, ...
Depending on the diagnosis (need of the
team at that time) one of the two mentioned dimensions will be appropriate,
or a well-considered combination. If there is no safety in a
team, all efforts to agree on a goal or a plan are meaningless. It is
sowing on the rocks.
However, it is not because the
team members themselves ask for "play" and "search" activities
that this is also the real need of the team. Playing together promotes
confidence, and therefore fits in with primary group formation. "Play"
and "search" are behavioral patterns that reduce anxiety. That
is their role in human development. In the growing stages of childhood,
playing is the ideal way to learn how to deal with reality (without immediate
consequences). Playing together has the added advantage that social
relationships are developed simultaneously. Colleagues are a crucial part
of the social environment, and these are explored by playing, tested and
graded. The result is a safe social environment that offers the opportunity
to form a team.
However, more is needed to turn a group
into a team. Next to safety, work must be carried out on goals, plans,
work distribution, processes and social hygiene. As always: relationship
comes first, then the content. Without safety, no team.
The question remains whether playing
together is the only way to work on group formation. Maybe not. It is
basically about getting to know each other as a person, and thereby developing
security in the relationship.
People who have a strong preference to
develop relations primarily through play, presumably have more preference for
playing than for the real social needs in general. Or they
simply associate one with the other. (Association is a substitute for
a proven cause-effect relationship, and is based on a resemblance between two
things, often with an emotional foundation.) When they have indulged in a
playing team building, they often feel satisfied that they are feeling well;
they had ‘a good time’. But after finding a relaxed state of mind, the
focus still needs to go to the team. And that naturally requires more than a
relaxed feeling. Sobriety commands us to acknowledge that this preference for
relaxing is based on one's own need to feed the reflex brain. (Another
good game together, horsing around in the pasture, release control and give
free rein to the mammal in the brain) is not building, rather satisfying. Agreed
that the search for satisfaction of curiosity and the voluntary testing of
people and relationships is a useful activity, but only to the extent that it
makes the necessary group formation possible. Sticking with it is more a
sign of limited maturity , or a lack of responsibility to achieve
something outside of oneself. But that also points to rather limited
maturity. Searching for satisfaction is self-centered behavior, with
comfort as a first desire. Looking for solutions is serving behavior, even
if that is about good relationships that should form the basis for good
agreements.
There are also other ways to get to know
each other, and that have a more mature background. Dialogue on
the major issues of life. Discuss and verify
values. Sharing experiences and insights. Share results and
disappointments. Exchange and compare plans. Investigate
personalities and give and receive feedback. If a safe social space must
first be developed, then these actions seem to be more obvious methods. We
could place this as a pre-frontal, conscious and purposeful way to work on
relationships and secure context. In this way, emotions are also made
subordinate to constructive behavior. Get emotions out of the way to allow
constructive attitudes.
Moreover. It is known
that giving space to emotion further stimulates and
strengthens the emotion. This leads to social derailments as every
observer of this world can determine; it is the basis of conflict and
polarity. To channel emotions and make them subordinate to common sense
and constructive behavior, reflection is also needed on the
emotions. Analyzing and placing is the message, no further heating. Teambuildings
that give a lot of room to emotion, and the associated behavior (such as
competition, for example) therefore have a counterproductive effect. If
team members give priority to the playing urge, even bullying behavior could arise,
which is the most aggressive way to seek social security, based on a very weak maturity
(or bad examples?). And who will be targeted by bullies in such a team
building? Exactly, the less assertive colleagues, rather modest and shy,
and especially the very sensitive and introverted personalities. After
all, they provide a safe ‘subject’ to the ‘players’ to test out their own urge
for control. It goes without saying that in such a way the team can suffer
considerable damage, and especially those targeted. In this way, there is
even an ethical side to team building.
Hugo Der Kinderen
March 2019
(1) Temple Grandin, Making Animals
happy, Bloomsburry, London, 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment